JF 515 
. P49 
Copy 1 





SILENCE 

GOLDEN 


AMERICAN PHIIOMATHIC 
SOCIETY 

CHICAGO 
















COPYRIGHT 1920, AMERICAN PHILOMATHIC SOCIETY. CHICAGO 


• * * 






































TABLE OF CONTENTS 



FOREWORD 

CHAPTER 1—The Use of Parliamentary Law in Daily Life. 

Page. 5 

CHAPTER 2—The Parliamentary Law, Public and Vocational 
Speaking Courses. Page.13 

CHAPTER 3—Pointers on Parliamentary Law, The Constitu¬ 
tion, Speaker’s Rulings, etc. Page.22 

CHAPTER 4—Your Decision. Page.47 

Use this space for indexing such “rulings” as you are par¬ 
ticularly interested in: 


My Enrollment in the American Philomathic 
Society is dated_19__ 


3 


















FOREWORD 


There is an inherent desire among all men and women to 
be leaders. Some want to dominate. 

Chance throws a few to the fore; ability forces others to 
the top. But the great majority merely look on silently and 
while wishing for the ability to lead, are forced to take the easier 
way and be represented by those who are able to take conspicu¬ 
ous parts. 

In the United States today the vast majority of men and 
women belong to some organization or other which transacts 
its business through some kind of meetings. The leaders are the 
officers—and in turn the officers are usually selected from the 
very small minority capable of leading. 

This minority can be easily changed to a majority—the num¬ 
ber of capable leaders can be enlarged for there are unlimited 
opportunities today for leadership in civic, business and public 
affairs. 

The United States, from its very inception, has produced 
remarkable leaders in every line of endeavor, but in one particular 
group they have been comparatively few. It is the purpose of the 
American Philomathic Society to help enlarge this group through 
its Practical Courses in Parliamentary Law, Civics, Organiza¬ 
tion, Public and Vocational Speaking. 

To that end this book and the Courses it describes are offered 
for your respectful consideration and approval. 

AMERICAN PHILOMATHIC SOCIETY 


4 


CHAPTER 1 


THE USE OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW IN DAILY LIFE 

The Tenant’s Protective Association meeting had just been 
called to order. 

The Chairman, Harry Masters, after disposing of the pre¬ 
liminaries, made a short talk. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, 
“the landlords have raised our rents and most of these raises 
have been exorbitant. It has been suggested that the members 
of this Association resist the raises and fight eviction by jury 
trials. 

“If we do that, expert legal talent will be needed. Two 
lawyers have offered their services on a yearly basis for $10,000. 
Will some one make the motion?” 

The motion was made, seconded, and carried by a substantial 
majority. 

Immediately after the vote was announced, an officer of the 
Real Estate Board arrived and made the statement that the 
landlords did not care to be arbitrary and were willing to treat 
with the members of the Association on an amiable and fair basis. 

One member of the minority who had voted against employ¬ 
ing the attorneys saw a chance to save some money and imme¬ 
diately made a motion to reconsider the action just taken. And 
by a big vote the first motion was ordered reconsidered and the 
action thereon vacated. 

A few days afterward it developed in reconsidering, that a 
rule of Parliamentary law had been violated. Only a member 
who had voted for the first motion could put the motion to recon¬ 
sider. As a result it looked for a long time like the Tenant’s 
Association had been obligated to employ two expensive attor¬ 
neys. The only solution was to call another meeting—an expen¬ 
sive and inconvenient process for many of the members, which 
could have been avoided if they had possessed a knowledge of 
the fundamental rules of Parliamentary procedure. 

You recall the action of the Tennessee Legislator referred to 
in the news clipping reproduced on a near by page. 

******** 

JEFFERSON’S MANUAL 

The need for a correct system of Parliamentary procedure 
is by no means of recent origin. It was first recognized over a 
hundred years ago by Thomas Jefferson who wanted something 
to guide himself in his Parliamentary duties. 

5 



HERMAN AMES PHILLIPS 

DEAN 


6 







The solution he found for that problem is told in the follow¬ 
ing paragraphs. You will find the story decidedly interesting. 

Jefferson’s Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for 
his own guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his 
Vice-Presidency, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by 
rule which still exists, provided that the provisions of the Manual 
should “govern the House in all cases to which they are appli¬ 
cable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing 
rules and orders of the House.” In 1880 the committee which 
revised the rules of the House declared in their report that the 
Manual, “compiled as it was for the use of the Senate exclusively 
and made up almost wholly of collations of English parliamentary 
practice and decisions, it was never especially valuable as an 
authority in the House of Representatives, even in its early 
history, and for many years past has been rarely quoted in the 
House.” 

This statement, although sanctioned by high authority, is 
extreme, for in certain parts of the Manual are to be found the 
foundations of some of the most important portions of the 
House’s practice. 

RELATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LAW TO THE 
EARLY PRACTICE OF CONGRESS 

Jefferson's Own Statement 

“But to what system of rules is he to recur, as supplementary 
to those of the Senate? To this there can be but one answer: To 
the system of regulations adopted for the government of some one 
of the parliamentary bodies within these States, or of that which 
has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model 
which we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the 
modifications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in 
publications possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are 
probably as wisely constructed for governing the debates of a 
deliberative body, and obtaining its true sense, as any which 
can become known to us; and the acquiescence of the Senate, 
hitherto, under the references to them, has given them the 
sanction of their approbation.” 

******** 

THE NEED FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS 

In the United States today there are literally thousands of 
organizations and societies represented by officers elected because 
of an assumed ability to lead. 


7 


J. G. Cannon 


prntse of y&epxzzmiciiibBS JL 
Ptasfytngtoit, JL C. 


To Whom It May Concern: 

Mr. Herman A. Phillips for eight 
years during my service as Speaker of the 
National House of Representatives was 
Journal Clerk, and I was dependent upon 
him, as Journal Clerk, and Mr. Asher C. 
Hinds, as Clerk to the Speaker's table, 
for assistance in the performance of the 
duties of my office more than any other 
two men in the House of Representatives. 

Without hesitation I take pleasure 
in stating that I am satisfied they are 
the two best parliamentarians in the 
United States, of high character in every 
respect. 

Any courtesy extended Mr. Phillips 
will be a favor to me. 

With respects, etc., I am. 

Yours very truly. 



8 


Some of these leaders are competent. The great majority 
are not, any more than the rank and file of the organization. 

Chance makes some men leaders, but the terms of such men 
would be short lived if members were to train themselves in the 
fundamentals of Parliamentary Law and Public Speaking. 

No member can justly complain that he is poorly represented 
unless he , himself , can do better than his leader. 

Business organizations which hold memberships in a number 
of associations frequently are unable to secure adequate represen¬ 
tation at the various meetings because there are no qualified 
persons to send. 

The Vice-President of one of Chicago’s big corporations had 
in his organization only one man who could represent the company 
properly at meetings. One day four associations, in which the 
company held memberships, scheduled meetings for the same 
hour, and as one man could not be in four places simultaneously 
the company suffered a severe loss through lack of representation 
at three of the meetings. All of the meetings were important to 
this corporation but no one of them could be postponed as others 
had come a considerable distance to attend. 


Such an instance is within your own recollection. 

It is an assured fact that the business world offers wonderful 
opportunities to the man or woman who can represent their com¬ 
pany adequately and who can advocate propositions on its behalf. 
Speakers with this ability are always in demand. 

Excellent opportunities are offered to the progressive woman 
who wants to take advantage of the unlimited opportunities 
granted her by the Suffrage Amendment. Women who are inter¬ 
ested in civic and club affairs will find in our training that which 
they need to succeed and for which they have been looking for so 
many years. 

THE OPPORTUNITY IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

It is a well known fact that the majority of men in political 
and public life today are lawyers. It was their law training 
which gave them the foundation for the knowledge of Parliamen¬ 
tary procedure needed for capable leadership, and yet all lawyers 
are not parliamentarians. Without Parliamentary training, gained 
through experience, these leaders would have been almost impotent 
—with it they command respect and confidence. As a result they 
take the lead in most all affairs. 

You have noticed that even in a convention composed largely 
of Bankers, Scientists, Doctors, Tradesmen or the Crafts that 
the lawyer is looked to for the principal address. 

9 


October 6, 1920. 


Messrs Curran & Phillips, 

Chicago, Illinois. 

Gentlemen: 

After a very careful reading of the manuscript 
of your proposed course in Parliamentary Law and Public 
Speaking I wish to state that I am now agreeable to sub¬ 
scribe to the general expression of those belonging to 
fraternal organizations that the ability of the presiding 
officer lies almost entirely in the degree of his -under¬ 
standing of Parliamentary Law. 

I have observed in the organizations of which I 
am a member what always seemed to me as a lack of know¬ 
ledge of the fundamentals requisite to properly conduct 
the meetings but 1 now find that those whom I was often 
on the verge of criticising were not to' blame for their 
apparent lack of ability because there has been nothing 
up to now that could give a person a real training in 
Parliamentary Law and the procedure thereunder. 

This work has my entire endorsement and I wish 
to thank you for permitting me to gain the very valuable 
information which 1 have been able to get. I shall per- 
sue this study with you and wish to express my very best 
wishes for your success. 

Very truly yours., 

Mr. Brady is a graduate of Lumbard College and former City Attorney of Ottawa, 

Ill.; also Past Chancellor, K. P. and former member Grand Lodge of Illinois, K. P.- 
Past Exalted Ruler, B. P. O. E. and member of Grand Lodge, B. P, O. E.j member 
Knight of Khorrassan and member Imperial Palace of Khorrassan. 

10 


\ 


Any man or woman who will devote the small amount of time 
and energy needed to master Parliamentary Procedure will be 
opening up a path to profitable participation in public as well as 
social life. This statement is especially applicable to men in 
business whose training has been one-sided and to women who 
have not heretofore had much opportunity. 

The story is told of a prominent Illinois business man who was 
offered his party’s nomination for State Senator from his district. 
The nomination was equivalent to election. And yet the business 
man declined and privately confessed that his reason for doing so 
was his lack of knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, which he 
felt, would prevent him representing his constituents intelligently. 

If you will review the history of the American people, you will 
find that the men who have moulded public opinion were Parlia¬ 
mentarians of the first water. The most outstanding of this 
group have with few exceptions received their training in the 
National House of Representatives or the Continental Congress. 

Among those who actually accomplished things and did most 
in a public way were Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, 
Hamilton, Henry, The Adams’, Clay, Calhoun, Polk, Webster, 
Randall, Cobb, Randolf, Lincoln, Douglass, Blaine, Harrison, 
Garfield, McKinley, Reed, Carlisle, Crisp, Henderson, etc. 

And today we have in the House and in the Senate a number 
of Legislative Genius’ such men as Gillette, Cannon, Clark, Mann, 
Kitchin, Mondell, Lodge, Harding, Williams, Knox, Borah, John¬ 
son, Reed and many others of great ability who can be depended 
upon to uphold the principles urged by the Fathers. 


YOUR FUTURE 

It is an indisputable fact that proficiency in Parliamentary 
Law, Public and Vocational Speaking offers a combination of 
two golden opportunities. On the one hand you have the chance 
to enter politics and public life; on the other you can remain in 
business and qualify to take the leader's part. Regardless of which 
path you choose, the rewards, prestige and power are unusually 
excellent. 

“ The greatest single factor in making a systematic study of 
Parliamentary Procedure is the rules of the National House of 
Representatives. ’ ’ 

Progress requires only purpose and training. The American 
Philomathic Society will provide you the training as the following 
chapters of this book will demonstrate. 

11 


law offices or 


JAMES W. CARMALT 
ALFRED ©. HAOERTY 
WILLIAM O.WHEELER 


CARMALT, HAGERTY AND WHEELER 


MUNSCY BUILDING 


Washington, o.c. October 5, 1920 


J. P. Curran, Esq., 
c/o Prank Palmbla, 

Hoorn 937 - 127 No. Dearborn St., 
Chicago, Ill. 


Deer Sir: 


I thank you for sending me the outline of what 


you are to give in the Home Study Course in Parliamentary 
Law and Public Speaking. You could not in this way devel¬ 
op subjects of much greater importance. The encouragement 
given by those so well known in the educational field of 

this country speaks highly of the undertaking. In my Judg¬ 
ment the teaching of parliamentary law, using as a basis 
the Constitution of the United States, will be of high value, 
since in that manner much of our legislative history will 

receive treatment not heretofore given. Certainly there is 
much room in our educational field for the teaohing of Amer- 
can institutions. 



AGH/CAH 


12 


CHAPTER 2 


PARLIAMENTARY LAW , PUBLIC AND VOCATIONAL 
SPEAKING 

Method of Instruction 

The American Philomathic Society conducts its instruction 
through the non-resident method exclusively. 

This method has been in vogue for more than thirty years and 
is a proved success. Leading universities such as Chicago, 
Columbia and Wisconsin, have extensive home study depart¬ 
ments and give regular university credit for work done through 
the correspondence method. 

The late President Harper of the University of Chicago made 
the following statement: 

“The work done by correspondence is even better than 
that done in the classroom. The correspondence student 
does all the work himself. He does twenty times as much 
reciting as he would in a class where there are twenty 
people. He works out the difficulties himself and the results 
stay with him. In resident work, with the teacher at his 
elbow, the information comes easily and quickly and often 
goes as easily and quickly.” 

In properly conducted correspondence instruction nothing is 
left to chance. Everything is put into printed or written form 
and is as accessible ten years from today as it is at the present, 
and when properly constructed it will be accurate and will stand 
the test of time. Thus facilities for frequent and profitable 
review are offered. 

Regulate Your Own Study Time 

When you enroll with the American Philomathic Society you 
are treated in your study as an individual . You are in a class by 
yourself; you go slowly or rapidly just as you choose; you are 
master of your own time and progress. If you are particularly 
rushed with business duties in one season of the year you can sus¬ 
pend the reading of the Courses with the assurance that you can 
make up back work when you have more time at your disposal. 

The Society places no embargoes on your time. There are no 
vacation periods—no weather interference. And there can be no 
deferred sessions owing to the “professor’s illness”—no wasted 
time spent in arguments between the “star” students. 

Most of our student members are men and women engaged 
in business who want to learn the art of leadership as a means of 
qualifying for better things. You earn while you learn. You 
do not have to sacrifice any business connection or leave your 
daily work. 


13 


CHAMP CLARK, M. C. WALLACE D. BASSFORD. CLERK 

9th Mo. District Robert Bowman. Jr., asst, clerk 

of P* 

MINORITY CONFERENCE ROOM 

Pfasfyingtcm, <39-<E. 


To Whom It May Concern: 

I have known Mr. Herman A. Phillips 
for several years. He is the Journal Clerk 
of the House, and during the fourteen 
years that I have known him, I have seen 
him practically every day. I know him to 
be a man of good habits, high character, 
sober, industrious, affable, and punctual. 
He is a general favorite with the members 
of the House. 

Very sincerely yours. 



14 


OUTLINE OF THE COURSE 

Lesson Books 

The basis of our Courses is the series of Lesson Books sent to 
each member student weekly. 

Section One 

Section One of the Lessons covers the fundamentals of Parlia¬ 
mentary Procedure and is based on the Rules of the National 
House of Representatives with special reference to Speaker’s 
Rulings and precedents. It is essential that the student be well 
grounded in Procedure and the Precedents for even if one is able 
to speak but has no knowledge of the proper method, he might 
better remain silent. 

Section Two 

The Second Section of the Lessons treats of Jefferson’s 
Manual—a guide which many will remember was used as a 
handbook by lodges, clubs, etc.—with its application to the 
present procedure in the House and Senate. 

Section Three 

The Lessons of the Third Section are devoted to the Constitu¬ 
tion of the United States viewed from the legislative side with 
Speaker’s Rulings and U. S. Supreme Court decisions. 

Section Four 

The concluding Lessons, Section Four, are devoted to the 
rules of Public and Vocational Speaking. The instruction in 
these subjects follows the lines laid down by the best recognized 
authorities. The student who digests this material carefully will 
have no difficulty in speaking on his feet with ease and sureness. 

From the Text 

In another chapter of this Bulletin you will find excerpts 
taken from the various Lessons giving many of the Speakers’ 
Rulings, precedents, side lights on the Constitution, and text 
from Jefferson’s Manual. An examination of this material will 
yield an excellent insight into the real meat provided for your 
reading. 

Make Up of the Lessons 

In size the Lesson Books measure 6x9 (the same size as this 
bulletin), and average about fifty pages in length, except the 
Public and Vocational Speaking, which are less as a great part of 
the foundation of this study is the text in the other sections. 
Each Lesson is printed in the same size type that is used here 
with the general and sub captions in italics. This together with 
the same paper as this Bulletin will eliminate any cause for eye- 
strain. In fact, take it by and large, the Lesson Books positively 
match up with this Bulletin. 

Quizes 

With each Lesson you will receive a printed set of Quiz 
questions based on the text, giving an opportunity to test yourself 

15 


on the Lesson material you have read. These questions will test 
you as to what you are learning and school you in the use of 
Parliamentary language. 

There is nothing compulsory about answering these questions 
but most of our students find it very profitable to do so. All 
answers you send to us will be carefully examined under the 
personal supervision of the Dean, Herman Ames Phillips, and 
returned to you with such criticisms and comment as may be 
helpful to you. 

CONSULTING SERVICE 

Every student member will be accorded the privilege of asking 
as many questions as desired on matters pertaining to the Course 
or of a private Parliamentary nature. 

Questions arising in connection with the text will be answered 
by competent instructors under the personal supervision of 
Mr. Phillips. 

Questions outside the text will be answered by Mr. Phillips 
personally. 

THIS SERVICE WILL BE RENDERED FOR A PERIOD 
OF TWO YEARS from date of enrollment (without extra cost), 
which is an extension of several months beyond the end of the 
Course. 

Questions on Parliamentary Law which came up in a meeting 
you attended and which may not have been solved properly may 
be submitted to us for an opinion. In other words, we offer you 
an UNLIMITED CONSULTATION SERVICE which will be 
of help in your daily affairs. Our student members say this 
Service is of great value and a big feature of the Course. An 
invitation is extended to every member to make full use of it. 

All of your questions will go to the department under the per¬ 
sonal supervision of Mr. Phillips, Dean of the Society who is recog¬ 
nized as being one of the country’s leading parliamentarians. Mr. 
Phillips’ experience in his more than fifteen years as Journal Clerk 
in the National House of Representatives has given him a training 
in Parliamentary Procedure which cannot be equaled. An 
opinion from Mr. Phillips can be considered authoritative. In 
this connection the letter from former Speaker Jos. G. Cannon, 
reproduced on a nearby page, tells an interesting story. 

ENCYCLOPEDIC CROSSREFERENCED INDEX 

The value of many a course has been seriously weakened 
through the lack of a good index. This common weakness has 
been overcome by the authors of our Course. 

At the time the final Lesson of Section Three is sent forward 
you will also receive the Encyclopedic Index printed as a separate 
volume and covering Sections, One, Two, and Three only. This 
is a cumulative, crossreferenced Index which will enable you to 
locate any point discussed or Speaker’s Ruling in the various 
separate Lessons. This added feature makes the entire Course a 

16 


Myrtle TannerBlacklidge 

6123 Indiana Ave., 

Chicago., 

American Philomathic Society 

Your course of home study In Parliamentary Law and 
Public Speaking has grasped my Interest In a manner such as no other 
thing could at this time, 

Women in social,fraternal, and public life can profit im¬ 
mensely through this study,and should take immediate opportunity In fit¬ 
ting themselves for the larger activities in which women may engage 

To compliment you on the style in general and the quality 
of the text in particular seems to me the proper thing to do* 

With considerable pride I wish.to state that I am a 
parliamentarian of no small degree but since having read over considerable 
of your course I feel there is much yet for me to. learn,and. along with 
my endorsement of your wonderful work ,1 wish to convey my best wishes for 
your great success and enclose my cheok for tuition I am a member of the- 
Illinois Colony Club,Chicago Political Equality League, Washington Park 
Women's Club, Women's Allied Drug Club, and different civic clubs;I 
appreciate the help your course would be for any club member* 



17 


handy and authoritative reference library available for instant 
use in any circumstances. There is enough in the index alone to 
help you at most any meeting you might be called upon to attend. 

Encyclopedic Index 

This is not to be confused with the General Outline which 
accompanies this Bulletin. The General Outline covers only 
the general topics. 

PUBLIC SPEAKING 

The fundamentals of Public Speaking and the preparation of 
speeches is taught in the Course through the detailed analysis 
and study of the products of the great statesmen of America and 
England. Every student member will be required to prepare 
and write out a speech or so called sales talk. Special stress is 
laid on the principles of construction of the address and the 
argument. 

This work develops confidence and overcomes fear. The 
student member is taught “how to talk” effectively to various 
types of audiences and to individuals in the pursuit of his vocation. 
******** 

VOCATIONAL SPEAKING 

This Course has been compiled under the personal supervision 
of John Philpot Curran, LL.B., Chicago, and is designed for the 
students who have had some experience in public speaking and 
are able to talk somewhat effectively. 

Generally, speeches actually delivered are used and but very 
little especially compiled used except for the purpose of making 
additional objective analysis to fit the present. We must take it 
for granted that the great speakers and parliamentarians acted with 
forethought, therefor the sayings of the great masters shall be 
your models and inspiration. 

It will be up to the student to emulate these statesmen by 
their own creative effort developed through this course of study. 

The psychological principles of importance are discussed and 
their application shown. Special attention is given to persuasive 
speaking and emphasis is placed upon the importance of securing 
action by the art of oratory. 

A real effort is made to train the student specifically along the 
line of his best development through assigning subjects dealing 
with the student’s particular vocation. 

Thus the salesman is required to submit practical sales talks, 
the executive practical business talks, the book salesman, his 
canvass, the lawyer an address to the jury, the judge and politician 
real vote getting speeches, the clergyman his sermon and so on. 
Instruction of this kind produces excellent results in a very 
short length of time. 

CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY 

When you have satisfactorily completed the Course, that is 
all four sections, you will be awarded the Society’s Certificate of 

18 


CHARLES SCRIBNER EATON 

ATTORNEY ANO COUNSELOR AT LAW 


LAW OFFICES 
Suite eoo Portland block 
3b North dearborn Street 


telephone Randolph sei 
"Western U nion" « "Postal- 
Cable Address "Chasertoh 


The American Philoraathlc Society, 
127 North Dearborn Street, 
Chicago, Ill. 

Gentlemen:- 


CHICAGO 

October 21st, 1920. 


I have been much impressed, with the advanced sheets 
of your plan for popular education in the rules and proceedure 
now in force in the National House of Representatives and in 
general parliamentary law and precedents. For in a republican 
form of government, such as our own, where every man and woman 
is entitled to, and of duty bound to participate in the manage¬ 
ment of public affairs, whether through some social, benevolent 
or fraternal organization or by service in some of the numerous* 
municipal, state and national deliberative bodies, it is the 
utmost importance that the widest information be had by every¬ 
body in proper methods and precedents to be followed. 

The evil effects in loss of time, expenditure of 
public money and long court litigation incident to following 
wrong precedents and improper handling of so simple a matter 
as a motion to lay a proposition on the table and the power 
of the City Council of Chicago at a subsequent meeting to take 
the same from the table and to reconsider the matter is only 
too familiar to those acquainted with the famous Board of 
Education cases in this City wherein the Supreme Court of the 
State was finally obliged to step in to straighten out the 
tangle as shown in the case of The People vs Davis as reported 
in 284 Illinois 439. 

I am sure, therefore, that if the plan as contemp¬ 
lated by you be fully developed and wider interest aroused in 
the study and application of proper parliamentary practices 
and proceedure that a great service will have been rendered. 



Mr. Eaton besides being a member of the Board of Aldermen, City of Chicago, 
is Local Secretary of the Sons of the Revolution. 


19 




Proficiency. This document is on excellent paper and is of a 
size suitable for framing. The member to whom it is awarded 
will refer to it with a constant source of pride. 

This Certificate is not awarded under any circumstances to 
members who do not send in the answers to the Quizes to give us 
an opportunity to judge the quality of their work in the Course. 

PERIOD OF TIME 

The Courses are arranged to cover a period of about six 
months and the average student can complete the study easily in 
that time. (It should be noted that the Consulting Service extends 
over a period of two years from the date of enrolment—without 
extra cost.) In view of the fact that all instruction is individual 
you can arrange to read the Course as rapidly or as slowly as 
you wish. Our staff of instructors will cooperate in every way to 
make it easy for you to carry a special schedule if you wish. 

THE FEE 

This study in its entirety consists of two distinct Courses, one 
in Parliamentary Procedure, Civics, Organization, etc., the other 
in Public and Vocational Speaking, but because of the relationship 
of these subjects one to the other we have deemed it to your 
interest to consolidate the two and offer as one Course under one 
tuition . 

The fee for the Courses in Parliamentary Law and Public 
and Vocational Speaking is $75.60 if payment in full is made at 
the time of enrollment. If a deferred plan of payment is desired 
convenient monthly installments will be allowed. The fee on 
this basis is $84.00. That includes everything—there are no 
extra charges of any kind. 

CLEAR STYLE 

Every part of the Course is written in a plain simple style so 
that there can be no chance for any student to fail to comprehend 
the reading. As a result of this arrangement, the lessons- are 
very easy to understand and to remember. The reading matter 
of the Courses which might under ordinary circumstances be dry, 
becomes decidedly interesting under our method of treatment. 

The quiz questions are clear and to the point, they must be 
for they are based on actual happenings. 

The description of our Courses would not be complete without 
giving an insight into some of the material treated in the various 
lessons. 

We ;have therefore selected, from the text , certain passages 
of extraordinary interest which you will find printed following. 
The information given will be of help to you at once in addition 
to providing an idea of the merits of the entire study. 

20 


Leonidas a. lowrey 

2046 Transportation Building 
CHICAGO, ILL. 


Ootoher 6, 1920, 


My dear Mr. Curran: 


date: 


Referring to our conversation this 


From the outline presented of your 
course in Parlimentary Law and Public Speak- 
ino, including a study of the Constitution 
of the United States, in my opinion a very 
comprehensive understanding of our system of 
Government will result from a oareful study of 
this course and a knowledge of civics that will 
he most helpful. 


A course of this character is most 
opportune at the present time and will he 
worth a great deal to those who avail them¬ 
selves of it. 

Every American Citizen should study 
the Constitution of the United States so as to 
fjhcome thoroughly familiar with the form of 
Government under which we are living. 



Mr. Lowrey is Secretary of the Central Freight Association and Chairman 
the Standing Switching Committee, Chicago. 


of 


21 


CHAPTER 3 

POINTERS ON THE CONSTITUTION AND ON 
PARLIAMENTARY LAW 

Information for You 

Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, made the point 
of order that the resolution contained a proposition not privileged. 

After debate the Speaker, Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, 
ruled: “The including of matter not privileged destroys the 
privileged character of a bill. ‘A resolution of inquiry loses its 
privileged character if matter not privileged be contained therein. 
A privileged proposition may not be amended by adding thereto 
matter not privileged or germane to the original question’— 
citing the various decisions of the House. The rulings of the 
House heretofore have been that you can not, under the guise 
of a privileged matter, couple therewith matters not privileged. 
It seems to the Chair that the House heretofore has decided 
wisely in that respect.” 

******** 

“One of the suppositions on which the parliamentary law is 
founded is that the Speaker will not betray his duty to make an 
honest count on a division.” 

******** 

Member Must Confine Himself to the Subject 

It has always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in 
the House the Member must confine himself to the subject under 
debate. 

On February 7, 1825, (Eighteenth Congress, Second Session) 
the rules for the government of the coming Presidential election 
by the House were taken from the Committee of the Whole, and 
Mr. George McDuffie, of South Carolina, proceeded to continue 
the debate begun in Committee of the Whole. The question 
before the House was a motion to strike out a provision allowing 
the galleries to be cleared on the motion of one State during the 
election of President. Mr. McDuffie was discussing whether the 
people had the right to instruct their delegates, this being brought 
about through discussion of the influence of people in the galleries. 

In the midst of the speech Mr. Daniel Webster, of Massachu¬ 
setts, observed that he rose with great pain, and he hoped the 
gentleman from South Carolina would do him the justice to 
believe that nothing but an imperious conviction of duty induced 
him to interrupt an argument which he knew it would give him 
pleasure to hear; but he submitted whether it was in order to 
go into an argument in the House in reply to an argument urged 
in Committee of the Whole any more than if it had been urged 
in a select committee. 

The Speaker, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, decided that the 
observations of Mr. McDuffie were not in order, on the ground 

22 


stated, and that they were not in order for another reason viz., 
that the whole scope of the debate was irrelevant to the question 
actually before the House. 

*****!!«** 

It is in order to move the previous question on this motion 
or resolution for the election of Members to committees. (Ruling 
by Speaker Clark, June 6, 1913, Sixty-third Congress, First 
Session.) 

The Speaker. “On Tuesday last the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Mann, made a parliamentary inquiry of some importance, 
to which the circumstances at that particular moment did not 
necessitate an answer from the Chair, but upon which several 
prominent Members think the Chair should render an opinion 
for future guidance, and, it being a new question, the Chair 
concurs in their suggestion. 

The parliamentary inquiry was this: When the floor leader 
submits to the House a list of nominations for membership on 
committees, has he or any other Member the right to move the 
previous question on the said list of nominations? 

After due consideration of the question, the Chair is of the 
opinion that under such circumstances the motion for the previous 
question is in order.” 

******** 

Article I. Legislative Powers Vested in Congress 

Section I. All legislative powers herein granted shall 
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: 

Hayburn’s case (notes), 2 Dali., 409; Field v. Clark, 143 
U. S., 649; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364; 
United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S., 370; St. Louis & Iron Moun¬ 
tain Railway v. Taylor, 210 U. S., 281; Monongahela Bridge Co. 
v. United States, 216, U. S., 177; United States v. Grimaud, 216 
U. S., 614. 

******** 

Same rule of debate on House Calendar bills called up on 
Calendar Wednesday as on other days, and Member in charge of 
bill may move previous question as on other days. 

On April 7, 1920, Mr. Platt called up the bill H. R. 13138, 
which was considered in the House. Mr. Platt had consumed 
about 20 minutes of debate and then moved the previous ques¬ 
tion, although Mr. Morgan sought recognition for an hour as an 
opponent of the bill. 

Mr. Walsh of Massachusetts made the point of order against 
the motion for the previous question and said: 

The Calendar Wednesday rule provides that debate shall be 
limited to two hours and shall be equally divided between those 

23 


Kansas City Willys Light Co. 

DISTRIBUTORS OF 

WILLYS LIGHT PRODUCTS 


Kansas City Mo October 18, 1920*, 


American Philomatic Society, 

127 Bo. Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Ill. 


My dear Mr. Curran: 

I have read with much interest the advance copies 
of your publication. 

During twenty years of practice of the law in 
Chicago I have had opportunity to note, with regret, the utter 
lack of knowledge of the procedure of the National Congress. 

Not only should lawyers and executives possess an 
intimate knowledge of the history and practice of parliamentary 
law, but with the awakening of what may be termed the National 
Conscience, especially developed by the national income and 
inheritance tax laws which makes every man and woman a unit 
in the organization of our Federal law making body, your work 
takes on an importance which cannot be over-estimated. 

I shall be delighted to follow your efforts and to 
commend it to the favorable consideration of my associates. 

You are performing a distinot service to the American people, 
and should meet with great success. 



President. 


24 



for and against the bill under consideration. Now, is it in order 
to move the previous question with the division of the time 
unequal? 

Pending discussion on the point of order the House adjourned. 

On April 21, 1920, on motion of Mr. Platt, the House decided 
to consider the bill as unfinished business. 

The Speaker, Frederick H. Gillette thereupon overruled the 
point of order made by Mr. Walsh and said: 

The Chair thinks that is the first business. The determina¬ 
tion of this point of order is not without difficulty. It is a 
puzzling question. What the Chair should determine is, of 
course, the intent of this new rule. It has never been interpreted. 
Under Speaker Clark the question was once raised, but the 
Speaker reserved time for deliberation, and then the question 
did not come up again, just as it would not have come up to-day 
except for the two-thirds vote of the House, and so it is a novel 
question. 

The purpose of the Chair will be to decide the question, both 
in accord with what he thinks was the purpose of those who 
framed the rule, and also in accord with what he thinks would 
be for the advantage of the House in carrying out that purpose. 

******** 

A Speaker pro tempore sometimes designates another Speaker 
pro tempore. 

On February 12, 1885, (Forty-eighth Congress, Second session) 
Mr. J. C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, who had been elected 
Speaker pro tempore by the House, designated, by written com¬ 
munication, Mr. Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, to act as Speaker 
pro tempore during an evening session. 

Members of the minority have been called to the chair on 
occasions of ceremony, but in rare instances on other occasions. 

******** 

Qualifications Other Than Those Specified by the Constitution 

It has been decided by the House and Senate that no State 
may add to the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution. 

On February 27, 1856, (Thirty-fourth Congress, First session) 
the Senate Judiciary Committee reported on the right of Mr. Ly¬ 
man Trumbull, of Illinois, to a seat in the Senate. A provision of 
the Constitution of Illinois provided that certain judges of that 
State should not be eligible to any other office of the State or 
United States during the term for which they were elected nor 
for one year thereafter. Mr. Trumbull had been a judge and came 
within the prohibitions of the constitution. Hence a question 
arose as to the effect of qualifications imposed by a State in addi¬ 
tion to the qualifications imposed by the Constitution. 

25 




October 4, 1920. 


Messrs. Phillips and Curran, 

Dear Sirs;- 

I have read the original manuscript of your treatise on the 
Constitution of the Ufiited States, Jefferson’s Manual, parliam¬ 
entary Law and Public Speaking and desire to commend you for 
your painstaking care in its compilation. 

It is hardly believable that the concise exposition of one 
side of our National life could be so graphically told as in 
the Speakers Rulings on matters of Legislation arising in the 
Congress. 

The citation of u. S. Supreme Court Rulings gives this work 
an authoritativeness beyond argument and the educational value 
of these alone will appeal readily to all citizens. 

If Americanism is to be advanced, the section on the Consti¬ 
tution is the medium as it is immensely interesting and profound¬ 
ly inspirational. Your presentation of this is so simple that 
anyone able to understand English should grasp the full import 
without difficulty. 

I believe every one can profit from the study you give oppor¬ 
tunity of securing 

With best wishes for deserved success, 



Mr. Rossen is a graduate of Lake Forest University; Chicago College of Law; 
now Assistant Attorney General, State of Illinois; for eight years Chairman of Law, 
and for two years Chairman of Endowment, Knights of Joseph. 


26 




BILL OF RIGHTS RETAINS PROVISIONS OF 
MAGNA CHARTA 

Such, e. g., as the guaranty in paragraph 40 of Magna Charta. 

PURPOSE AND USE OF BILL OF RIGHTS 

"The Bill of Rights, 1689, is historically the most interesting 
part of these constitutions, for it is the legitimate child and 
representative of Magna Charta, and of those other declarations 
and enactments, down to the Bill of Rights of the Act of I William 
and Mary, session 2, by which the liberties of Englishmen have 
been secured. Most of the thirteen colonies, when they asserted 
their independence and framed their constitutions, inserted a 
declaration of the fundamental rights of the people, and the ex¬ 
ample then set has been followed by the new states, and indeed, 
by the states generally in their most recent constitutions. Con¬ 
sidering that all danger from the exercise of despotic power upon 
the people of the states by the executive has long since vanished, 
their executive authorities being the creatures of popular vote and 
nowadays rather too weak than too strong, it may excite surprise 
that these assertions of the rights and immunities of the individual 
citizen as against the government should continue to be repeated 
in the instruments of to-day. A reason may be found in the 
remarkable constitutional conservatism of the Americans, and 
their fondness for the enunciations of the general maxims of 
political freedom. But it is also argued that these declarations of 
principle have a practical value as asserting the rights of individ¬ 
uals and of minorities against arbitrary conduct by a majority in 
the legislature, which might in the absence of such provisions be 
tempted at moments of excitement to suspend the ordinary law 
and arm the magistrate with excessive powers. They are, it is 
held, still safeguards against tyranny; and they serve the purpose 
of solemnly reminding a state legislature and its officers of those 
fundamental principles which they ought never to overstep.” 
******** 

On May 2, 1906, (Fifty-ninth Congress, First Session) the 
Speaker laid before the House the request of a member for leave 
of absence. Usually such leaves are granted by unanimous 
consent, but in view of the fact that objection was being made to 
all requests for unanimous consent, the Speaker was proceeding 
to put the question on granting the leaves. 

Thereupon Mr. John S. Williams, of Mississippi, objected 
that no motion had been made. 

The Speaker, Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, thereupon enter¬ 
tained a motion made by Mr. Williams that the member have 
leave of absence, and the motion was agreed to by the House. 

Whether or not they are privileged is a matter of doubt. 
******** 

In the history of our Government it has never been claimed 
that the House of Representatives, acting alone, possessed the 
power to add to or change the qualifications of its Members. 

27 


The vain attempt made by Mr. Randolph, in the case of Barney 
v. McCreery, in the Tenth Congress, to vindicate a claim of that 
kind in favor of the States, signally failed, and has never been 
repeated in the House. 

******** 

Mr. Justice Story, in his dicsussion of the subject of the 
qualifications of Representatives in Congress, says that it would 
seem but fair reasoning, upon the plainest principles* of inter¬ 
pretation, that when the Constitution established certain quali¬ 
fications as necessary for office it meant to exclude all others, 
as prerequisites, and that from the very nature of such a provision 
the affirmation of these qualifications would seem to imply a 
negative of all others. And although it is certain that the letter 
of those constitutional provisions which relate to Representatives 
from the States does not apply exactly to the cases of Delegates 
from the Territories, still it is just as certain that their spirit does. 
******** 

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AS TO 
NUMBER CONSTITUTING A QUORUM 

Out of conditions arising between 1861 and 1891 the rule was 
established that a majority of the Members chosen and living con¬ 
stituted the quorum required by the Constitution, but later 
examination has resulted in a decision confirming in the House of 
Representatives the construction established in the Senate that a 
quorum consists of a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn. 
So the decision of the House now is that after the House is once 
organized the quorum consists of a majority of those Members 
chosen, sworn, and living whose membership has not been ter¬ 
minated by resignation or by the action of the House. 

Against this amendment Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, 
raised a point of order, saying: 

Congress has powers prescribed by the Constitution. They 
are general when Congress finds itself with a quorum in each 
body composing Congress prepared to do business. There is a 
special power when that case does not occur and when each House 
finds itself without a quorum. How is it when there is not a 
quorum present? The Constitution then intervenes and makes a 
rule. When Congress finds itself assembled without a quorum in 
either branch the Constitution prescribes what it can do, what it 
may do, what if it chooses it must do, but gives no latitude to 
any other body, or to the body itself outside of its action when the 
case occurs, to prescribe in advance that it shall do certain 

things and only certain things. 

******** 

SENATE TRIES IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTS BY 
TWO-THIRDS VOTE 

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all im¬ 
peachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall 
be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the 

28 




The Container Club 

An Association of corrugated and solid fibre 
Box Manufacturers 
Office of tee Secretary-Trfasvrer 
608 Sornt Dearborn Street 
Chicago 

October 8th, 1920 


Mr. J. P# Curran, 

937 - 167 N. Dearborn s t., 
Chicago, Illinois. 

Dear Sir: 


I have been very much interested in the outline of 
your course in Parliamentary Law and Public Speaking which 
you submitted to me for criticism. It looks good to me and 
I am glad to have this opportunity to say that I feel quite 
sure it will be of great assistance to those who are com¬ 
pelled, through business or otherwise, to attend meetings. 

Our Association is a voluntary organization and is 
governed by parliamentary practice and procedure; - instances 
are constantly arising where a thorough knowledge of Parliament¬ 
ary Law is essential and this knowledge is frequently of vital 
importance in meetings of business men organized for profit. 

The deliberative body can only accomplish its purposes 
in proportion to the understanding its members have of Parliament¬ 
ary Law, and every man in business should acquire the art of ex¬ 
pression in order to avoid embarrassment, especially when called 
upon for extemporaneous speech. 

I believe your course will produce the results you 
claim for it and wish you all possible success in your new 
venture. 


Yours very truly, 

Secretary-Treasurer 
THE CONTAINER CLUB. 


29 


United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and 
no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 
two-thirds of the members present. 

In 1868, after mature, consideration, the Senate overruled the 
old view of its functions, and decided that it sat for impeachment 
trials as the Senate and not as a court, (Fortieth Congress, 
Second Session) and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself 
as a “high court of impeachment.” 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 

An anxiety lest the Chief Justice might have a vote in the 
approaching trial of President Andrew Johnson seems to have 
prompted this action (Fortieth Congress, Second Session). There 
was examination of the question of the Chief Justice’s power to 

vote; but the Senate declined to.. 

******** 

Mr. Justice Harlan said, “I fully concur with Mr. Justice 
Field that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, 
no one of the fundamental rights of life, liberty, or property 
recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 
States can be denied or abridged by a state in respect to any 
person within its jurisdiction.” 

******** 

“While, therefore, the ten amendments, as limitations on 
power, and so far as they accomplish their purpose and find their 
fruition in such limitations, are applicable only to the federal 
government, and not to the states, yet, so far as they declare or 
recognize the rights of persons, they are rights belonging to them 
as citizens of the United States under the Constitution; and the 
Fourteenth Amendment, as to all such rights, places a limit 
upon State power by ordaining that no state shall make or enforce 
any law which shall abridge them. If I am right in this view, 
then every citizen of the United States is protected from punish¬ 
ments which are cruel and unusual. It is an immunity which 
belongs to him, against both state and federal action.” 

******** 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO PRECEDENCE OF 
QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE 

The clause of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence 
of all other questions except a motion to adjourn is a recognition 
of a principle always well understood in the House, for it is an 
axiom of the parliamentary law that such a question “supersedes 
the consideration of the original question, and must be first 
disposed of.” 

Jefferson’s Manual, (treated in detail in Section II of this 
course) in the latter portion of Section XXXIII, provides: 

A matter of privilege arising out of any question, or 
from a quarrel between Two Members, or any other cause, 

30 



supersedes the consideration of the original question, 
and must be first disposed of. 

As the business of the House began to increase it was found 
necessary to give certain important matters a precedence by rule, 
and such matters are called “privileged” questions. But as they 
relate merely to the order of business under the rules, they are 
to be distinguished from “questions of privilege,” which relate 
to the safety or efficiency of the House itself as an organ for 
action. 

“This House, then, is governed by the general parliamentary 
law such as has been established in the same manner that the 
common law of England was established, by repeated decisions 
and the general acquiescence of the people in a system which 
governs all ordinary assemblies. 

The United States is filled with people unusually devoted to 
public meetings. These public meetings have to be governed by 
a system of rules or principles which have been both designated 
and acted upon by various meetings in great numbers to such an 
extent that a well-defined parliamentary law has been established. 

The suggestion which has been made during this debate that 
the matter of the control of the House is under the exclusive 
control of the occupant of the chair is at this very moment 
receiving a negative, because an appeal is pending in this case, as 
has been or might be in many others, against the decision of the 
Chair. All decisions from the Chair by appeals, which are made 
under proper circumstances and in good faith, are subject to 
revision by the majority of the House. Consequently there is 
not and can not be any arbitrary control of this body against its 
will. The Speaker, for the time being and as a matter of con¬ 
venience arising from the nature of his office, makes a ruling upon 
the subject which is before the House. That ruling is always 
subject to revision by the House itself, and no one can take away 
that right on the part of the House.” 

******** 

GENERAL PARLIAMENTARY LAW 
How to Perfect a Temporary Organization 
If you should invite a number of your neighbors to your house 
to discuss some matter of local importance, the first business 
would be to perfect a temporary organization so that order might 
be preserved. The way to do this is for some person to call the 
meeting to order, state the purpose of the meeting and either 
nominate some person for Chairman or call for nominations. 
After the nomination has been made some one can second it, but 
it is not necessary in a temporary organization. When a Chair¬ 
man has been decided upon, a Secretary should be nominated and 
elected in the same manner. This constitutes a temporary 
organization, and the meeting is ready to proceed with its busi¬ 
ness. 

If your society is to be made permanent, you should perfect a 
permanent organization. 


31 


4 f 

/'■Of ,, Iy in Uc e<J C °Ju,* * 

/ u ‘hdt n o.'ff Q * 'X 

//**' 7 * '*e . VXft °°^ °V / 

•; 777 l> 7 y/^j 

/ W> *-Z er ^>“l **• XvA/ / ^ 

/ A f^za to tff *’ 0f Otr *«». / / 

< 7 ** 0 ,, "v «< 

</•/„, f,e 'Uf^ c ?*r>a c *°tj n * Ht 'y / 

f t/)e £j° n * of ^JolZ' 

->Q* l °n * « ►XA/wX th„ ^ r/ ty / 


W 


r '^C** 7 $ 

/, *ouZ **£**>,£'»«';, "%«77 / aw ^/?Pcr. 

A>' 0 < **-««£%* 7 a 9 * 

?*«• ^ *a, '■«e, *tf / s .7 *, **• « 0; , ^«> („ S '°J 'A 

Sfc 0 7 ^i^/ >57 

«<£**•>'*» ,„ ef «f V. ■ AX *» <X>% »*£yv • 

A -’’A 5 ' a, „ 7 /AX X> •«^£*xA 
t *> .KS?W ' %. A 


'«« „ ' ’ Op ■'•S- / <0=. * A?q,. '«<&>, ‘<-71 ®e « ' 'Ot*. / <A* 

7*0 S^S^fC : ^Sp 

* \ / / ^ 4 » ^ //J «- , A J 

A?* 2**^'7 7/ 'AX Ao^" - *0 4 < *°‘" A* /’'. 

//<: a>> - /•■ 

Ji, ^o//,- ^ 6 rt e POh A «/ ® J 


X vtS./' 

/XA Txt ®a\X; 

xxAxx* 0 s N/ 

a A r.Ofr ^ *fe> orx®- - 




32 




THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 

Purpose and Effect.—This amendment was the outgrowth of 
conditions existing at the close of the war between the states, 
and was intended to insure the preservation of the constitutional 
results of that struggle. At the same time it was a re-enactment 
of ancient civil guaranties, and is to be considered with reference 
to that fact. 

While Intended Primarily for the Benefit of the African Race. 
—It has been so broadened by judicial construction as to have 
become a sort of new Magna Charta for all races domiciled within 
the United States. 

Effect of Fourteenth Amendment on Application of First 
Ten Amendments.—A theory has of late been advanced that the 
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment has operated to render 
the provisions of the first ten amendments applicable to the 
states because these latter confer certain privileges and immuni¬ 
ties upon citizens of the United States which by the Fourteenth 
Amendment the states are prohibited from abridging. 

******** 

An Indian who has not been naturalized or made a citizen by 
one of the recognized legal modes does not become one by virtue 
of this amendment, though he has separated himself from his 
tribe and subjected himself to the national and state govern¬ 
ments. 

******** 

But the right to practice Law in the State Courts is not such 
a privilege and immunity. 

******** 

“Some fears have been expressed as to what would be the 
result if the occupant of the chair desired to wrest from the Mem¬ 
bers their control. All parliamentary law must be based upon the 
supposition that a man who is elected to preside over the delibera¬ 
tions of a body will be an honest official—honestly perform his 
duty.” 

******** 

“The right of appeal insures the House against the arbitrary 
control of the Speaker and can not be taken away from the House.” 

On February 11, 1857, Mr. Sam Houston, of Texas, while 
speaking in the Senate, asked for order, saying: 

“Sir, I well remember the august and solemn appearance of 
this body some twenty years ago, when the fathers sat here. 
Then it was a majestic body indeed. There was something awful 
in its appearance. The solemn stillness, the gravity of Senators, 
the propriety of conduct, the silent auditory—all impressed the 
spectator with a solemn awe when he entered this Chamber or 
came into its galleries or lobbies. The House of Representatives, 
too, was silent. If there a voice was heard in the galleries, 
instantly the eye of the Speaker rested upon the Sergeant-at- 
Arms, and a messenger or the Sergeant in person immediately 

33 


repaired to the individual in the gallery and touched him, and 
there was silence. If a Member sat in an indecorous position, or 
laid his foot upon his desk, the Speaker sent his page with this 

message: “The compliments of the Speaker to Mr. ---, 

and he will please take down his foot;” and he never put it up a 
second time. There was grandeur about legislation then.” 

He******* 

On April 20, 1798 (Fifth Congress, First session) the Speaker 
being indisposed, (this was before the present rule relating to 
sickness of Speaker) and unable to attend, it was, on motion, 

Resolved , That this House do now proceed, by ballot (Speakers 
are now elected viva voce and Speakers pro tempore by reso¬ 
lution) to the choice of a Speaker pro tempore, to perform the 
duties assigned to the chair, during the absence of the Speaker. 

The House accordingly, after some discussion as to the pro¬ 
priety of the action, proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of 
a Speaker pro tempore; and the ballots being taken, a majority 
of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of George 
Dent, one of the Representatives for the State of Maryland. 

After the Speaker pro tempore had been conducted to the 
chair. 

Ordered , That a message be sent to the senate to nofity them 
of the said oppointment; and that the Clerk of this House do go 
with the said message. (The present usage is to send a message 
to the President also.) 

******** 

JEFFERSON'S MANUAL AS A STATEMENT OF 
PARLIAMENTARY LAW 

The Manual is regarded by English parliamentarians as the 
best statement of what the law of Parliament was at the time 
Jefferson wrote it. Jefferson himself says, in the preface of the 
work: 

“I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my 
information, among which Mr. Hatsel’s most valuable book is 
preeminent; but as he has only treated some general heads, I 
have been obliged to recur to other authorities in support of a 
number of common rules of practice, to which his plan did not 
descend. Sometimes each authority cited supports the whole 
passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken together. Sometimes 
the authority goes only to a part of the text, the residue being 
inferred from known rules and principles. For some of the most 
familiar forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer 
having supposed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed 
to know. The statement of these must rest on their notoriety. 

“I am aware that authorities can often be produced in oppo¬ 
sition to the rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An atten¬ 
tion to dates will generally remove their weight. The proceed¬ 
ings of Parliament in ancient times, and for a long while, were 
crude, multiform and embarrassing. They have been, however, 

34 



constantly advancing toward uniformity and accuracy, and have 
now attained a degree of aptitude to their object beyond which 
little is to be desired or expected. 

“Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may 
not have mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and 
especially in those minor forms which, being practiced daily, are 
supposed known to everybody, and therefore have not been 
committed to writing. Our resources in this quarter of the globe 
for obtaining information on that part of the subject are not 
perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which those who come after 
me will successively correct and fill up, till a code of rules shall be 
formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of which may be 
accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity and 
impartiality.” 

******** 

On January 10, 1842, (Twenty-seventh Congress, Second 
session) Chairman George W. Hopkins, of Virginia, in the course 
of a ruling made in the Committee of the Whole, said: “A chair¬ 
man does not sit here to expound rules according to his own 
arbitrary views. A just deference for the opinions of his fellows 
should constrain him to give to precedent its proper influence; 
and until the House shall reverse them, to give them all the con¬ 
sideration which is due to cases heretofore settled by a solemn 
decision of the House.” 

******** 

Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, asked if it did not require 
a majority of all the Members elected to the House to elect a 
Speaker. 

The Clerk, George M. Adams, of Kentucky, replied: “It 
requires a majority of those voting to elect a Speaker, as it does 
to pass a bill. The rule requires that a quorum shall vote.” 
Since 1890 the requirement has been the quorum present, rather 
than the quorum voting. In the decision of the Supreme Court 
sustaining the ruling of Mr. Speaker Reed, the court had used 
this language: 

“And here the general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that 
when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum 
is the act of the body itself.” 

******** 

On February 14, 1901, (Fifty-sixth Congress, Second session) 
while the sundry civil appropriation bill was under consideration 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
a vote was taken on an amendment proposed by Mr. James D. 
Richardson, of Tennessee, and relating to certain payments on 
account of the old custom-house in New York City. 

On a division, there being ayes 75, noes 75, Mr. Richardson 
demanded tellers, which were ordered. 

Before the announcement of the vote by tellers the Chairman, 
Henry S. Boutelle, of Illinois, announced that he would like to be 
considered as having gone between the tellers. Thereupon he 

35 


Cbe inniveretfe ot Chicago 


Cbe Scbool ot Commerce anb administration 


March 15, 1919 


Mr. John P. Curran 
Chicago, Illinois 

My dear Mr. Curran: 

Within a few days you should receive the Uni¬ 
versity's oheck as an honorium for your lecture 
of March 7 on Market Structure and Function. 

Please let me know if the cheok does not reach 
you promptly that I may follow up my certific¬ 
ation. 

As I believe you realize, this check is only one 
expression of our appreciation of your cooperation. 
This letter will not have done its part if it does 
not carry to you my personal thanks. 


Yours very sincerely. 



CWW JOT 


36 


announced the result, ayes 92, noes 92, and that the amendment 
was lost. 

******** 

HERE IS A POINT TO REMEMBER 
INTERRUPTION OF A MEMBER IN DEBATE 

A member having the floor may not be taken off his feet by 
an ordinary motion, even the highly privileged motion to adjourn. 

On December 2, 1890, (Fifty-first Congress, Second Session) 
Mr. William E. Simonds, of Connecticut, had been recognized by 
the Speaker, when Mr. Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, moved that 
the House adjourn. 

The Speaker, Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, held the motion 
out of order on the ground that Mr. Hopkins had not the floor, 
Mr. Simonds having been recognized and being in possession of 
the floor. 

******** 

On July 1, 1856, Mr. William A. Howard, of Michigan, from 
the select committee which had been appointed to investigate the 
troubles in Kansas, submitted, as a question of privilege, a report 
in writing. 

Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order 
that, inasmuch as it had been admitted that the paper presented 
had not been acted upon at a full meeting of the committee, it 
could not be received as the report of the committee. 

The Speaker, Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, overruled 
the point of order,, on the ground that it was competent for a 
majority of the committee to act. From this decision of the 
Chair, Mr. Hendley S. Bennett, of Mississippi, appealed. The 
appeal was laid on the table. 

******** 

An instance occurred on May 10, 1866 (Thirty-ninth Congress, 
First Session) when Mr. Speaker Colfax voted for the joint reso¬ 
lution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The entry 
was: “The Speaker voted in the affirmative.” 

The duty of giving a decisive vote may be exercised after the 
intervention of other business, or after the announcement of the 
result or on another day, if a correction of the roll shows a con¬ 
dition wherein his vote would be decisive. 

******** 

Mr. J. Frederick C. Talbott, of Maryland, made the point of 
order that the resolution did not present a question of privilege. 

The Speaker, John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, said that when¬ 
ever it was asserted on the floor of the House that the rights or 
privileges of the House had been invaded or violated, it was the 
duty of the Chair to entertain the said question, at least to the 
extent of submitting it to the House. Therefore he overruled the 
point of order. 


37 


JEFFERSON'S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY 
PRACTICE 

Sec. 1.—Importance of Adhering to Rules as Related to the Privileges 
of Minorities 

Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of 
Commons, used to say: “It was a maxim he had often heard when 
he was a young man, from old and experienced Members, that 
nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administra¬ 
tion, and those who acted with the majority of the House of 
Commons, than a neglect of, or departure form, the rules of 
proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, 
operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, 
and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection 
to the minority, against the attempts of power.” So far the 
maxim is certainly true, and is founded in good sense, that as it is 
always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop 
any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, 
the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves 
against similar attempts from those in power are the forms and 
rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found 
necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, 
by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be pro¬ 
tected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were 
intended to check and which the wantonness of power is but too 
often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities. 

NECESSITY OF RULES OF ACTION 

And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or 
not is really not of so great importance It is much more ma¬ 
terial that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; 
that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not sub¬ 
ject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members. 
It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be pre¬ 
served in a dignified public body. 

******** 

Before the announcement of the vote Mr. Charles K. Wheeler, 
of Kentucky, requested that pairs be announced. 

The Chairman, Sereno E. Payne, said: 

“The Chair does not think pairs should be announced in 
Committee of the Whole. It is an unprecedented thing; and the 
Chair does not think it can be done.” 

******** 

GENERAL PARLIAMENTARY LAW 

How to Perfect a Permanent Organization 

Immediately after the temporary organization has been per¬ 
fected, a committee should be appointed or elected to draft a 
constitution, by-laws and standing rules. This committee 
should consist of members of ability and should be very carefully 

38 



JOHN PHILPOT CURRAN, LL.B. 

PRESIDENT 


39 











selected for the reason that the work they are to perform is very 
important. When this committee completes the writing of the 
constitution, by-laws and rules, they should submit a written 
copy to a full meeting of the organization; and this should be 
taken up for consideration by the organization section by section, in 
order that it may be amended if necessary. When the organiza¬ 
tion is satisfied that the constitution is as they want it to be it 
should be adopted as a whole. The constitution and by-laws, 
when adopted, constitute the organic law of the organization and 
must be obeyed. 

* * * * * * * He 

Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of 
order that the House had voted to go into Committee of the 
Whole, and pending that it was not in order to consider any other 
business. 

After debate the Speaker, David B. Henderson, of Iowa, said: 

'‘The Chair takes this view of it: The Chair has announced 
that the motion to go into Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union is carried. That, it seems to the Chair, 
removes the House and substitutes the Committee. While it is 
true that reports of the Committee on Rules are of the highest 
order and take precedence, still we must be in the House in order 
to consider them, in the opinion of the Chair. There is an easy 
remedy for it. If it is the pleasure of the committee, it has a 
right to rise and go back into the House. The Chair is very 
clear, however, that the House is in Committee of the Whole and 
would not be in a position to entertain a motion to adjourn even, 
which is a motion of the highest privilege if made in good faith, 
and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order and calls upon 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Grosvenor) to take the chair. 

Mr. John A. Kasson, of Iowa, made the point of order that 
the resolution was not privileged, being not a bill but only a 
declaratory resolution. 

After debate the Speaker, J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, held that 
the rule gave the Committee on Ways and Means right to report 
at any time only bills raising revenue, and sustained the point of 
order. 

******** 

JEFFERSON 7 S MANUAL 
Treaties. General Nature of Treaties 

Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. 
It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a 
foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. 
In all countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by 
the legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the 
land they must be approved by Parliament. It is acknowledged 
for instance, that the King of Great Britain cannot by a treaty 
make a citizen of an alien. An act of Parliament was necessary 

40 


to validate the American treaty of 1783. And abundant exam¬ 
ples of such acts can be cited. In the case of the treaty of 
Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the concurrence 
of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was rejected. 
France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles, in 
practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the 
treaty. 

******** 

On February 2, 1894, (Fifty-third Congress, Second Session) 
Mr. Elijah A. Morse, of Massachusetts, arose immediately after 
the prayer by the Chaplain and before the reading of the Journal 
and submitted the question of order whether it was in order for 
him to now move to amend the title of the bill (H. R. 4864) to 
reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for 
other purposes, passed by the House on the preceding day. 

The Speaker, Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, held that it was 
not now in order to move an amendment to the title of the bill. 
(Unless a separate vote is demanded on the title, it is always 
assured to be agreed to with the passage of the bill.) 

******** 

Mr. John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, said he understood the 
error occurred in printing the bill at the Government Printing 
Office. He thought, therefore, that the Speaker should be author¬ 
ized to erase his name and return the bill. 

This authorization was given without objection, and the 
Speaker erased his signature and returned the bill. 

******** 

Mr. William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, proposed to raise the 
question of consideration against the special order. 

The Speaker, J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, held that this day 
being set apart for the consideration of such business as might be 
presented by the Committee for the District of Columbia, the 
question of consideration could not be raised against such special 
order, but could only be raised against a particular bill or 
measure. The Speaker further held that a motion to postpone 
the special order was not in order, and that the Committee for 
the District of Columbia could not be dispossessed of their 
rights under the terms of the special order. 

******** 

The Speaker, Howell Cobb, of Georgia, declared that the 
resolution, as a question of privilege, was out of order, on the 
ground that the House on a former occasion, had so decided 
against the opinion of the Chair when a similar proposition was 
submitted, and also for the reason that it proposed a mode of 
election at variance with a standing rule of the House. (The rule 
requiring viva voce election. It will be observed that this ruling 
was made not at the beginning of the Congress, but after the 
House had adopted rules.) 


41 


THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY 


GENERAL CLAIM DEPARTMENT 
CHICAGO. ILL.. 


J. H. HOWARD, 

GENERAL CLAIM AGENT. 

P. C. ARCHER. 

ASSISTANT GENERAL CLAIM AGENT. 0Ct0t)6t* 16 , 1920 


Mr. J. P. Curren, 

Chicago, Ill. 


Pear Sir:- 


I have looked over eome of the work of your home 
study course in Parliamentary Law and public Speaking, and 
after my two years in Washington, P.C.., I can readily 
appreciate how valuable this work would be, as so few people 
know anything much about the subject. 

The work as you have it prepared seems to me to 
he in very good shape and will be of unlimited value especially 
to men in executive positions who are required to attend meet¬ 
ings, and may in their regular course of business be called 
upon at any time for a public talk. 

You know as well as I do how many men, while they 
have their subject well in their mind, are unable at a meeting 
to get up without previous notice and express their thoughts 
in such a way as to make their point clear to the audiance. 

I certainly believe that the work would be of utmost 
value to any one who is required to attend meetings or are 
called upon to express themselves so as to place a matter before 
any meeting. 


«JHH: T 



42 


General Parliamentary Law 

A motion to adjourn is in order before the minutes have been 
read. 

The reading of the minutes may not be interrupted, but in case 
of disorder the reading may be suspended until order is restored. 

The presiding officer should read the minutes before they are 
read to the society and they should have his approval, but this 
does not preclude amendment by the Society. 

******** 

Mr. George S. Houston, of Alabama, made the point of order 
that the resolution did not present a question of privilege, as the 
Chaplain was not an Officer of the House, the Thirty-fifth 
Congress having been organized without one, and that neither 
the law nor the Constitution required the election of such an 
officer. 

The Speaker, William Pennington, of New Jersey, in rendering 
his decision, said that he had looked into the precedents, and found 
that they were in favor of the question being considered privi¬ 
leged. Therefore he overruled the point of order. 

******** 

After debate the Speaker, Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, said: “The Chair must be governed by the rules of the 
House and by the interpretations which have been placed on those 
rules in the past by the House . . . This is not a new ques¬ 

tion. It was brought to the attention of the country in a remark¬ 
able manner in the Seventh Congress when Mr. Macon, then 
Speaker of the House, claimed his right as a representative of a 
constituency to vote upon a pending question, notwithstanding 

there was a rule of the House to the contrary.The 

Chair is not aware that the House of Representatives has ever 
deprived a Representative of the right to represent his con¬ 
stituency.” 

******** 

On April 9, 1904, (Fifty-eighth Congress, Second Session) 
Mr. George G. Gilbert, of Kentucky, asked that his name on a 
roll call of the preceding day be changed from “present” to “aye.” 
It appeared that he had refrained from voting “aye” because he 
erroneously supposed himself to have been paired. 

The Speaker, Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, after having 
read section 1 of Rule XV (§ 142) said: “The rule absolutely 
prevents the Speaker from even entertaining a request for unani¬ 
mous consent. The matter of pairs is a matter for gentlemen 
to regulate among themselves. . . . The Chair declines, 

under the rule, to entertain the request, the rule prohibiting him 
from submitting the request. 


43 


SAMUEL H. SCHNEIDER 
CHICAGO 


Chicago, October 18th* 1920* 


My dear Mr* Curran* 

1 wish to thank you most kindly for the opportunity 
offered to go over your P&rliiseat&ry Law and Public Speaking 
Course* and while I have not gone fully into the detail® 
thereof 1 have seen sufficient of it to compliment you moat 
highly on ita valuable test* 

Shis is something that we have needed for sometime, 
and in my daily work 1 have felt th© need of something of 
this kind* Anyone who has an opportunity to avail himself 
of this study can consider himself most fortunate, and 1 am 
free to say that 1 hope to take advantage of the course - in 
fact every man who attends meetings in similar capacities as 
1 should take advantage of a oourse such as you are affording* 

Wishing you muc^success, and with best wishes, 1 

remain 


Very truly yours, 



Mr* J* P. Curran, 

Chicago, Illinois* 

Mr. Schneider is Secretary and Treasurer 
the General Managers Association, Chicago. 


44 


JEFFERSON’S DISCUSSION OF TREATIES UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION 

By the Constitution of the United States this department 
of legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary 
legislature—the President originating and the Senate having a 
negative. To what subjects this power extends has not been 
defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed 
among ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the 
foreign nation party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, 
res inter alias acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, 
the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those 
subjects which are usually regulated by treaty, and can not be 
otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of 
these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President 
and Senate can not do by treaty what the whole Government is 
interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also to except those sub¬ 
jects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the House of 
Representatives. This last exception is denied by some on the 
ground that it would leave very little matter for the treaty 
power to work on. The less the better, say others. The Con¬ 
stitution thought it wise to restrain the Executive and Senate 
from entangling and embroiling our affairs with those of Europe. 
Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the Executive 
alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the Representatives 
such articles as are within their participation is no more incon¬ 
venient than to the Senate. But the ground of this exception 
is denied as unfounded. For example, e. g. the treaty of 
commerce with France, and it will be found that, out of thirty- 
one articles, there are not more than small portions of two or 
three of them which would not still remain as subjects of treaties, 
untouched by these exceptions. 

******** 

Form for Putting the Previous Question 

The gentleman from-demands the previous question. 

As many as are in favor of ordering the previous question will 
say “Aye;” as many as are opposed will say “No.” 

* ******* 

Considerable discussion arose over the resolution. Reference 
was made to the case of Thomas Cooper, tried while Congress 
was in session in Philadelphia. Members of Congress were 
summoned, but the court decided that Mr. Cooper was not en¬ 
titled to compulsory process against them. Mr. John Quincy 
Adams, of Massachusetts, criticised the resolution as far more 
extensive than was necessary to meet the case. This was an 
exceedingly delicate matter for the House to decide. On the one 
hand were privileges which were a departure from the common 
law of the country in favor of Members of the House—not for 

45 



their own advantage, but for the advantage of the country whose 
interests they represented. On the other hand the sacred powers 
of the courts of justice to summon witnesses before them was 
equally important to the liberties of the country, and to all its 
rights and interests. 

******** 

GENERAL PARLIAMENTARY LAW 
Standing Rules 

Standing Rules are of less importance than By-laws and care 
should be taken that they do not conflict either with the Consti¬ 
tution or By-laws. Standing Rules are subject to the will of the 
majority at any regular meeting. They bind the organization as 
long as they remain in force, but can be modified by amendment, 
suspended, or rescinded by a majority vote at any regular meeting. 
Parliamentary Law should govern the action of the members of an 
organization, when it is desired to change the constitution, by-laws 
and rules, unless the organization has prescribed other ways for 
so doing. 

Thereupon Mr. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky, submitted a 
resolution directing the Speaker to issue a warrant directing the 
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, either by himself or deputy, to 
arrest and bring to the bar of the House without delay E. W. 
Barnes to answer for contempt. 



READ, THINK , ACT AND TALK INTELLIGENTLY 
AND LOGICALLY 


46 

















CHAPTER 4 
YOUR DECISION 

The reading of the other chapters of this booklet has undoubt¬ 
edly convinced you that there are unlimited opportunities today 
for the skilled Parliamentarian and Public Speaker. 

You must know that you cannot always delegate everything 
to the hired man some things you have got to know and do for 
yourself , otherwise a time comes when you must fall short even 
in giving instructions. 

The question before you now, therefore, is whether or not you 
want to enroll for our Courses. A perusal of the following points 
will help you to make your decision. 

There is a desire in the hearts of most people to be better 
educated—to be able to act at ease among their fellows. The 
right kind of training properly applied will develop this faculty. 

The Creator gave man intellect and the power of speech with 
which to express his thoughts, the endowment of intellect is 
enhanced by ambition. Wisdom is not born in men, they 
acquire it. Ambition is part of the foundation. Every living 
example of success (except the mere possession of money) has 
had his beginning at the bottom and developed through per- 
severence which is only another name for ambition. 

There is always something more to learn. It is a historical 
fact that Cato, an exceptionally well educated man and scholar, 
started the study of Greek when more than 80 years of age. 

At no time can one properly feel that he has “learned it all,” 
for when that stage is reached he is in a rather lonesome position 
for he can no longer commune with Ambition and much less with 
his enemies or friends. 

Those who read and study our Courses in Parliamentary Law 
and Public and Vocational Speaking will find a real opportunity 
to better their condition and education. The instruction goes 
into the fields of Civics and History, government past and present, 
and, in detail, the Constitution of the United States. To the 
person in charge of men much will be learned concerning organiza¬ 
tion that can and should be applied to general business. 

Speeches of the great statesmen in America and England are 
given. A study of them will help to increase your vocabulary, 
increase your knowledge of the English language and make you a 
better scholar. Those who hava only a limited education will 
find a great opportunity for adding a liberal education. 

Thus there is offered to you HERE the means of becoming a 
leader in any walk of life and at the same time the chance, no 
matter where you stand , to capitalize and actually reap a profit on 
the time you put on this study. Do not delay your decision, but 
act TODAY. NOW. 


47 








n///xme/ 


jfrffibct 


CHAIRMAN 

CONVENTION ARRANGEMENT COMMITTEE 


v CHAIRMAN 
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE 


H. (jUbL^AA*/ 

■ CHAIRMAN 


- CHAIRMAN 
CHICAGO COMMITTEE 


ACTING SECRETARY 
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE 


48 


































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 040 055 301 


U 









